Churchill and politics of academia

The University of Colorado made the honorable decision in firing ex-professor Ward Churchill if it can be shown that other faculty with Churchill’s rank and tenure received the same punishment for academic fraud and misrepresentation (charges, by the way, he doesn’t refute). If lesser penalties were handed down for similar infractions, there may be reason to believe that that Churchill was singled out for his extreme political views.

As a former economics honorarium instructor at the University of Colorado, I don’t profess to know—and we may never know for sure—if the firing was politically motivated. Since the University has chosen not to settle with Churchill during his yearlong battle to retain his job, I suspect that CU attorneys believe that legal precedent gives them ample defense against the charge of political bias.

Churchill’s social activism most likely played a decisive role in his termination. But it’s a fact of life that professors who grab the political spotlight to advance radical agendas can expect to be scrutinized down to their last footnote. (Public figures of all political persuasions are dissected just as rigorously.)

Academic fraud is nothing short of intellectual theft, and when academic ethics are breached and subsequently exposed, the University—any university—simply cannot tolerate such misconduct, either from the student body or the professoriate.

Some local pundits are lamenting the chilling effect that Churchill’s departure will have on freedom of speech. Having served on faculty selection committees, I can attest that applicants for teaching jobs are extremely circumspect when it comes to admitting even a hint of conservative sentiment.

If your views are to the right of the academic mainstream, freedom of speech is also a luxury that relatively few can afford, especially for someone with Churchill’s flamboyant personality.

First you say; “…I don’t profess to know—and we may never know for sure—if the firing was politically motivated.” Than the first line on the next paragraph you said; “Churchill’s social activism most likely played a decisive role in his termination.”

So which is it that you “believe”? Was it politically motivated or not?

Lastly, what is an economics “honorarium” instructor, and exactly how would this give you any incite to what happened to a real Professor of Ethics studies.

When has economics and ethics ever become tangent?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Pauly

First you say; “…I don’t profess to know—and we may never know for sure—if the firing was politically motivated.” Than the first line on the next paragraph you said; “Churchill’s social activism most likely played a decisive role in his termination.”

So which is it that you “believe”? Was it politically motivated or not?

Lastly, what is an economics “honorarium” instructor, and exactly how would this give you any incite to what happened to a real Professor of Ethics studies.

When has economics and ethics ever become tangent?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Joe

Good bye and good riddance to that fake indian and his radical agenda. Hopefully that’s the last of my tax dollars going to support him.

Joe

Good bye and good riddance to that fake indian and his radical agenda. Hopefully that’s the last of my tax dollars going to support him.

Pauly

Still waiting for an answer Mark.

Pauly

Still waiting for an answer Mark.

Mqrk Travis

I’d like to thank everyone for commenting on my editorial.

By saying that I don’t profess to know if the firing was politically motivated–and that we may never know for sure–I’m making a statement that’s true both legally and epistemologically.

A court will have to decide whether CU’s decision to fire Churchill was based on proper evidence and motive. If a determination is made that Churchill was fired for academic indiscretion, skeptics will always argue that politics was the real motivation. And because we can’t read minds, there’s no definitive way of knowing for sure (though many will harbor strong suspicions).

I would argue that the best insight for judging motive is available by indirect means. If other, noncontroversial, profs guilty of the same offenses were given lighter penalties, then Pauly has a statistical case for suggesting that politics directly influenced CU’s decision to terminate.

Churchill’s social activism certainly played a role by encouraging those WITH political motives to uncover his indiscretions. That fact doesn’t necessarily impute a political motive to CU administrators responsible for terminating Churchill. And that’s the loophole will likely permit CU’s decision to stand in a court of law (though not necessarily in the court of public opinion.)

My master’s degree was in statistics, and that gives me some insight into the case, without knowing Churchill personally. I’ve had several Stat profs who were frequently called as expert legal witnesses because of their ability to find ways of validating or invalidating legal strategies for prosecution and defense attorneys.

Finally, I’ve known plenty of leftist professors. They tend to scream the loudest when their civil liberties are violated, but they don’t always practice what they preach. Churchill is one of the most vocal opponents of the Columbus Day parade. If you’re a campus radical, only hate speech from the Left seems worthy of Constitutional protection.–Mark

Mqrk Travis

I’d like to thank everyone for commenting on my editorial.

By saying that I don’t profess to know if the firing was politically motivated–and that we may never know for sure–I’m making a statement that’s true both legally and epistemologically.

A court will have to decide whether CU’s decision to fire Churchill was based on proper evidence and motive. If a determination is made that Churchill was fired for academic indiscretion, skeptics will always argue that politics was the real motivation. And because we can’t read minds, there’s no definitive way of knowing for sure (though many will harbor strong suspicions).

I would argue that the best insight for judging motive is available by indirect means. If other, noncontroversial, profs guilty of the same offenses were given lighter penalties, then Pauly has a statistical case for suggesting that politics directly influenced CU’s decision to terminate.

Churchill’s social activism certainly played a role by encouraging those WITH political motives to uncover his indiscretions. That fact doesn’t necessarily impute a political motive to CU administrators responsible for terminating Churchill. And that’s the loophole will likely permit CU’s decision to stand in a court of law (though not necessarily in the court of public opinion.)

My master’s degree was in statistics, and that gives me some insight into the case, without knowing Churchill personally. I’ve had several Stat profs who were frequently called as expert legal witnesses because of their ability to find ways of validating or invalidating legal strategies for prosecution and defense attorneys.

Finally, I’ve known plenty of leftist professors. They tend to scream the loudest when their civil liberties are violated, but they don’t always practice what they preach. Churchill is one of the most vocal opponents of the Columbus Day parade. If you’re a campus radical, only hate speech from the Left seems worthy of Constitutional protection.–Mark

Polly Pundit

Oh, you poor conservatives. Always being told to just shut up. If it was up to you, women would be gagged sex slaves, American natives written off as drunks and white people would all still use the “n” word to refer to people of color.

Polly Pundit

Oh, you poor conservatives. Always being told to just shut up. If it was up to you, women would be gagged sex slaves, American natives written off as drunks and white people would all still use the “n” word to refer to people of color.

Vincent Carroll is The Denver Post's editorial page editor. He has been writing commentary on politics and public policy in Colorado since 1982 and was originally with the Rocky Mountain News, where he was also editor of the editorial pages until that newspaper gave up the ghost in 2009.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Posts by Category

Posts by Category

Idea Log Archives

Idea Log Archives

About The Idea Log

The idea log The Denver Post editorial board shares commentary and opinion on issues of interest to Coloradans.